New Evidence on the Chronology of the “Anahita Temple”

Iranica Antiqua, vol. XLIV, 2009 doi: 10.2143/IA.44.0.2034383

NEW EVIDENCE ON THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE “ANAHITA TEMPLE”

BY Massoud AZARNOUSH (Iranian Center for Archaeological Research, Tehran)

Abstract: Partly standing-partly excavated remains of a monument in Kangavar, a town in western Iran between Hamadan and Kermanshah, have been dated to the Seleucid and/or Parthian periods. In an article published in 1981, nevertheless, M. Azarnoush argues in favour of a late Sasanian date for this site. The discovery of a brick under the massive masonry of the western platform of the monument in the course of later excavations provided the possibility for thermoluminescence dating of this sample. The TL reading of the brick conﬁ rms the Sasanian date of the monument. The present article intends to assess this and some other new information about the site.

Keywords: W-Iran, Kangavar, Anahita Temple, Sasanian, chronology

I- Introduction In an article published in 1981, I argued in favour of a late Sasanian date for the monument of Kangavar, frequently labelled the “Anahita Temple” (Azarnoush 1981: 69-94, Pl. 12-19). By that time I had completed two seasons of excavations on this site, following ﬁ ve seasons of work headed by Seyfollâh-e Kâmbakhsh-e Fard, another Iranian archaeologist of whose expeditions I am certainly honoured to have been a member. Reasons backing the new chronology may be outlined in the following:

– Isidor of Charax is the oldest author who mentions the presence of an Artemis Temple in Concobar, most probably the Greek pronunciation for the Iranian Kangavar. For the reasons explained in my article (Azarnoush 1981: 82-84) I have suggested that the identiﬁ cation of the Artemis Temple of Concobar with that of Anahita is a misinterpretation of Isidor’s writings. In addition, there is not a single piece of evidence in favour of an iden- tiﬁ cation of the remains under discussion as those of the Artemis Temple mentioned by Isidor.

11504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_10504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_10 339393 220-03-20090-03-2009 12:54:0712:54:07 394 M. AZARNOUSH

– Unlike Kambakhsh-e Fard, the excavator of the Parthian-early Sasanian cemetery on the eastern slopes of the hill — next to the eastern platform of the monument, who considers the presence of this graveyard as a proof of the sanctity of the site, I have argued that this cemetery was not different from other cemeteries of this period. Parthian cemeteries so far excavated in the region, from Hamadan to Kermanshah, have been established on wastelands. There is therefore no reason why this cemetery should have been different. During the Parthian-early Sasanian periods, therefore, this place must have been a desolate land (Azarnoush 1981: 82-84)

– Texier, Flandin and Coste are at the head of a long list of authors who date the monument to the Seleucid and/or Parthian periods. They consider the style of masonry in Kangavar to be Greek, albeit to varying degrees — from “exceptionally close to the Attic order” to “impure and degenerate”. The date of the monument, therefore, was basically established on stylistic considerations. I argued that these stylistic comparisons and conclusions do not with- stand more rigorous study. The style of the masonry in Kangavar may be more closely compared with that of Taq-e Garrâ, a small monument usually attributed to the late Sasanian period and the horseshoe arch which is narrowly comparable to those of sixth-seventh century Syrian works (Azarnoush 1981: 78-82, 90).

– While the proportions between various elements of the Greek orders, including those of the height and diameter, of the base, shaft, and the capital, are of utmost importance to their “Greekness”; in the columns of Kangavar these proportions are so dissimilar to the Greek orders pro- portion that no real analogy is conceivable. The proportions of the columns of Kangavar are akin to the pillars in some late Sasanian-Early Islamic excavated monuments (Azarnoush 1981: 89-90).

– A considerable number of stone pieces, both worked and untouched, bear mason marks. Some of these are single words, in Middle Persian, inscribed on the inner faces of masonry blocks. These are dated on the scripts’ stylistic characteristics, by Richard Frye and Vladimir Lukonin, respectively, to the Middle and Late Sasanian periods.

11504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_10504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_10 339494 220-03-20090-03-2009 12:54:0712:54:07 CHRONOLOGY OF THE “ANAHITA TEMPLE” 395

For Kambakhsh-e Fard, the excavator, these inscriptions are proof of the reparations that the “Anahita Temple” underwent during the Sasanian period (Azarnoush 1981: 91-92). This is an unlikely possibility, since marking the repaired parts in a monument, in a way that it would be distinguishable from the original parts of the monument under repara- tion, is an extremely new idea, almost certainly unknown in the Sasa- nian period1.

– Last but not least, Iranian and Arab historians/geographers unanimously date the monument to the reign of Khosrow II (A.D. 590-628) (Azarnoush 1981: 69-70, 84-85). Although this point in itself may be of little weight in the present discussion, yet, added to the abovementioned, it provides additional arguments in favour of my suggestion.

Mainly for these reasons, and in disagreement with previous opinions, I concluded that:

1- The monument in Kangavar should be dated to the late Sasanian period, most probably to the reign of Khosrow II.

In addition:

2- I suggested a hypothetical reconstruction. On the basis of one impost block discovered in the southwest corner of the monument and belonging to the hance of an arch, I proposed that arches similar to that of Taq-e Garrâ may have spanned the spaces between columns/pillars, cre- ating an arcade (Azarnoush 1981: 82, ﬁ gs. 8-9).

This point, too, was in disagreement with the ﬂ at roof suggested by Texier and accepted unanimously.

1 It would imply that the Sasanians were so familiar with modern conceptions of repa- ration and reconstruction of ancient monuments that they respected all modern standards in this regard; that is, when they repaired the “Anahita Temple” in Kangavar they care- fully dismounted the platforms, made the necessary reparations while putting their marks on the new pieces of masonry so that the new pieces would be distinguishable from the old ones, and then put the Greek styled columns back on their original locations!

11504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_10504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_10 339595 220-03-20090-03-2009 12:54:0712:54:07 396 M. AZARNOUSH

3- Finally, in a lecture delivered to a colloquium organized by the fourth expedition in Kangavar (Mehryâr & Kabiri 2004: 254-257) I argued that the construction might have remained incomplete2.

II- New Evidence Once my excavations came to an abrupt end in 1979, in 1985 a third expedition was organized, headed by Ali-e Valinouri and lasting one season. Afterwards, a fourth expedition, this time under the joint supervision of architect Mohammad-e Mehryâr and archaeologist Ahmad-e Kabiri, worked for several years, from 1988 to 2001. Alongside several seasons of excavations they also concentrated on conservation and reconstruction works. A report of their activities was subsequently published (Mehryâr & Kabiri 2004). This publication includes new evidence in favour of the triple conclusions I had reached, as mentioned above. Here I intend to assess the new information.

II-1- Chronology While making the preliminary investigations and damage evaluation on part of the western platform, in 1999 the fourth expedition came across a brick ﬁ rmly embedded in gypsum mortar and situated, under the heavy stone blocks and gypsum masonry of the platform, directly on the bedrock. It was located at the end of a test trench (Mehryâr & Kabiri 2004: 297) about 4.20 to 4.90 m. east of the still standing blocks of the platform’s façade (ﬁ gs. 1-3). The discovery of this brick provided the expedition with an unexpected opportunity to go beyond the relative, and disputed, chronology of site. The brick, therefore, was sent to the laboratories of Research Center for Conservation of Cultural Relics, ICHTO, for thermoluminescence dating. The TL reading on the brick gave an age of 1570 ± 140. If we add the 140 years of deviation to the proposed age of the brick we obtain a date within the ruling years of the Sasanian king Khosrow I (A.D. 531-578), but if we subtract the deviation we will obtain a date within

2 In this lecture I also suggested that a strong inﬂ uence of Late Antique “Syrian” craftsmanship can be detected in the masonry of the monument in Kangavar. Unfortu- nately the proceedings of this gathering remain unpublished.

11504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_10504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_10 339696 220-03-20090-03-2009 12:54:0812:54:08 CHRONOLOGY OF THE “ANAHITA TEMPLE” 397

Fig. 1. Kangavar. General plan of the complex (Azarnoush 1981).

11504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_10504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_10 339797 220-03-20090-03-2009 12:54:0812:54:08 398 M. AZARNOUSH

Fig. 2. Kangavar. Plan of test trench (based on Mehryâr & Kabiri 2004: Plan 13a).

the ruling years of the Sasanian king Bahram II (A.D. 276-293) (Mehryâr & Kabiri 2004: 115-116, 296-297; Bahrololoumi 2004: 297-298). It is obvious that this would be the date of burning the brick and may not be extended to the entire monument. In addition dating tests on only one sample would be hardly conclusive (Mehryâr & Kabiri 2004). We certainly need more samples, if available, to be tested. Nevertheless, the whole range of probable ages of the tested brick fall well within the Sasanian period, from A.D. 276 to A.D. 578, and if we consider the result reliable, the reign of Bahram II may be taken as terminus a quo for the construction of the monument of Kangavar. The brick may have found its way to this location quite accidentally and embedded in mortar during the construction of the platform. Yet,

11504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_10504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_10 339898 220-03-20090-03-2009 12:54:0912:54:09 CHRONOLOGY OF THE “ANAHITA TEMPLE” 399

Fig. 3. Kangavar. Section of the test trench (based on Mehryâr & Kabiri 2004: Plan 13).

there is another probability. This discovery, understandably, surprised the excavators (Mehryâr & Kabiri 2004: 297). Usually buildings in masonry are not erected on brick foundations. In addition, there was only a single brick, or piece of brick. In this case one may equally conclude that this brick, ﬁ rmly sat in gypsum mortar, may have been the remains of an ear- lier construction. If so, there is a remote possibility that at one time or another during the Sasanian period, from the ruling years of Bahram II onward, there was a building in brick in this area, replaced, at a later time, by the one, in stone and gypsum, still standing. One way or another, there is little doubt that the discovered brick was made during the Sasanian period, and since it is found on the bedrock and under the platform masonry, so it means that the Kangavar monument was erected during the Sasanian period, and certainly not in the Seleucid or Parthian periods. At the earliest, the construction of the “Anahita Tem- ple” may have begun during the ruling years of Bahram II and, given the suggested date of the brick; this action may have taken place at any time after the reign of Khosrow I as well, perhaps during the ruling years of Khosrow II.

11504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_10504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_10 339999 220-03-20090-03-2009 12:54:1012:54:10 400 M. AZARNOUSH

Fig. 4. Kangavar. Section of the test trench (based on Mehryâr & Kabiri 2004: Plan 13b).

II-2- Hypothetical Reconstruction My hypothetical reconstruction of an arcade on the edge of the southern platform, and most probably on all three sides where columns have been found, was based, on the one hand, on a right turn impost block found at about 20 m. from the southern platform, not far from the southwestern corner of the monument, and on the other hand, on the close resemblance of this impost block with those of Taq-e Garrâ. The fourth expedition unearthed several other stone blocks to add to the single one mentioned in my article of 1981. These include:

1- A complete impost block, belonging to both right and left hances and, showing the proper size for covering the entire surface of a capital (Mehryâr & Kabiri 2004: 134, 158, 243, ﬁ g. 44a).

11504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_10504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_10 440000 220-03-20090-03-2009 12:54:1112:54:11 CHRONOLOGY OF THE “ANAHITA TEMPLE” 401

2- Another impost block, from a left turn hance of an arch (Mehryâr & Kabiri 2004: 153, 158, 243, fi g. 51). 3- A key stone (Mehryâr & Kabiri 2004: 150, 243, fi g. 48) and 4- A piece of a second key stone (Mehryâr & Kabiri 2004: 150, fi g. 48a).

Based on these elements, the fourth expedition has suggested a hypothetical reconstruction of an architectonic unit, with quite an exotic function3 and, situated near the southern corner of the western platform, comprising only two arches (Mehryâr & Kabiri 2004: 161-162). Thus, the reconstruction of a long arcade on the edge of the southern platform is rejected (Mehryâr & Kabiri 2004: 163) and, in agreement with previous opinions, a fl at roof for the rest of the pillar/column rows is confi rmed (Mehryâr & Kabiri 2004: 136). It should nevertheless be noted that the reported elements of the two reconstructed arches were found scattered far apart. Almost all of them were unearthed at a distance some 10 to 17 m. from the proposed place of the arched construction (Mehryâr & Kabiri 2004: 276). The authors pro- vide no convincing explanation for the dispersion of these heavy stone blocks4. In addition, one should also take into account the total absence of any block that could back the existence of fl at stone roofi ng. Of course one may suggest that the fl at roof may have been made of wood. In this case it would equally be necessary to explain why such heavy infrastructure, that is columns/pillars required for construction of heavy stone arches, was erected if they were to support only a light wooden fl at roof. The discovery of various elements of two complete arches, the wide range dispersal of these elements from the southwestern corner of the monument to the middle of the central platform, and the total lack of evidence for any alternative solution add weight to my hypothetical reconstruction of an arcade along the outer edge of the platforms of the monuments.

3 The authors suggest that these two arches were, probably, erected “… under the cornice, in a short distance from it, near the southwestern angle of the monument, and in an inaccessible location. Probably symbols of the two beliefs then in vogue, that is Mithra- ism and another unknown belief, were installed in them, in a way that they could be seen from without the building, even from far distances.” (Mehryâr & Kabiri 2004: 162) 4 The authors conclude that the dispersion of the architectonic elements has been caused by an earthquake along the Dinavar-Nahavand fault (Mehryâr & Kabiri 2004: 275-276).

11504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_10504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_10 440101 220-03-20090-03-2009 12:54:1212:54:12 402 M. AZARNOUSH

II-3- Incomplete State of the Monument In 1994 a block was identifi ed and described in the report of the fourth expedition under the title: “Identifi cation of a particular block” (Mehryâr & Kabiri 2004: 169). Found inside the area of the monument, behind the western platform, this block was probably to be used in the construction of the facade of the platform near which it has been discovered. This cubic block, which has been in the process of being shaped, is remained rough and only parts of it, including the surface and about 10 cm. on the edges of its four sides, are fi nely cut. Abundant stone chips scattered around the block are additional reasons to suggest that, not only the fi nal stages of stone cutting took place in situ, but it also demonstrates that the stone cutting, at least in this case, was suddenly abandoned. If so, my suggestion about the incomplete state of the monument may be confi rmed.

Bibliography

AZARNOUSH, M., 1981. Excavations at Kangavar, Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran, NF. Band 14: 69-94, Pl. 12-19. BAHROLOLOUMI, F., 2004. Results of Dating test on a Piece of Brick from Kangavar, in: Mehryâr M & Kabiri A. (eds.), Excavations, Researches, Site Management and Introduction. “The fourth Archaeological Expedition” (From 1988 to 2001). The Continuation of Investigations in Anahita Temple, Kangavar, (Tehran, Research Institute, Iranian Cultural Heritage and Tourism Organization) (= Ë wbUU ¨gËóÄ±≥∏∞ ±≥∂∑¨‘ËU tU—U ÆÍdO bL«≠bL ¨—U dN U OU¬±≥∏≥ bF —œ U ‘UJM t«œ« ª© U “«® åwUM ÊU U ÁËdÖ 5—UNÇò wdF © ¨Íd~ œdÖ Ë w~Md À«dO ÊU“U ÁU~AËóÄ ªÊ«dN® ©—ËU~M: 297-298. MEHRYAR, M. & KABIRI, A., 2004. Excavations, Researches, Site Management and Introduction. “The fourth Archaeological Expedition” (From 1988 to 2001). The Continuation of Investigations in Anahita Temple, Kangavar, (Tehran, Research Institute, Iranian Cultural Heritage and Tourism Organization) (= 5—UNÇò wdF Ë wbUU ¨gËóÄ ¨‘ËU tU—U ÆÍdO bL«≠bL ¨—U dN ©—ËU~M U OU¬ bF —œ U ‘UJM t«œ« ª©±≥∏∞ U ±≥∂∑ “«® åwUM ÊU U ÁËdÖ Æ©±≥∏≥ ¨Íd~ œdÖ Ë w~Md À«dO ÊU“U ÁU~AËóÄ ªÊ«dN®

11504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_10504-08_Iran_Antiqua_44_10 440202 220-03-20090-03-2009 12:54:1212:54:12